The Honor Committee is currently looking at two changes to its constitutional bylaws and general policies that would have a significant impact on the honor system as a whole.
The first of these changes occurred at Sunday's weekly meeting, during which the Committee passed its new plagiarism and paraphrasing supplement in a 19-0 vote. The supplement will be added to the Committee's "green book" of policies and procedures. First presented by J.J. Litchford, vice chair for community relations, at the Committee's Sept. 20 meeting, the proposal has undergone several edits, both by Litchford and Chair David Truetzel.
The adopted version of the supplement states that it is "designed to elaborate on one element of cheating - plagiarism - with a particular emphasis on one kind of potential plagiarism - paraphrasing the ideas or work of another." The Committee defines plagiarism and paraphrasing, and also provides acceptable and unacceptable examples for each concept.
Litchford, who worked with a number of professional and academic experts on the supplement, said he was pleased that the Committee voted in favor of the changes.
"It represents us being able to identify things that need improvement, and then have a thorough discussion on them to make sure we get every detail right," Litchford said. "This passing represented everyone compromising really well and making sure we remember the intention of passing [the proposal] is to make it better for students."
Truetzel agreed, adding that the supplement will clarify the definition of plagiarism for the University community as a whole.
Until its green books can be reprinted, the Committee will soon launch a publicity campaign to alert students to the change and explain the supplement's contents, Truetzel said.
In addition Sunday to approving the supplement, the Committee also began to discuss a new proposal that would give convicted students the opportunity to appeal to the student body to overturn the ruling of their trials.
The proposal, presented by Graduate Arts & Sciences Representative Alexander Cohen, states that "a convicted student would have the right to have the facts of his case placed before the community and have his conviction overturned if, in the judgment of the community, he should have not [been] convicted." This appeal will require a convicted student to waive his right to privacy altogether.
Cohen suggested that a one-page report of a case could be released to students. The convicted student would then have to receive 500 signatures from the student body for the case to be overturned.
Cohen said he believes such an appeals process would engage the University community and the Committee in an enhanced discussion, and would also ensure that the Committee's and jury's
Read More
Student Council passes appointment bill, approves new CIOs at final meeting of semester
By Arshiya Pant | 8 hours agoMendoza Gonzalez also said she will be meeting with Kenyon R. Bonner, vice president and chief student affairs officer, to discuss further strategies for the Student Council Endowment Fund.
Professors speak about leading productive dialogue on Israel-Hamas war
By Lexie Stadler | YesterdayThe event was hosted by the University’s Task Force on Religious Diversity and Belonging, which is designed to ensure that the University is welcoming to community members from all religions and cultures.
Honor Committee considers formal ban of AI detectors as evidence in trials
By Lexie Stadler | 2 days agoThe Committee also addressed balancing student perspectives with those of Committee representatives during panel discussions.
